Quote from: RPGPundit;958738How do you handle this sort of thing? If a character fails at their detect traps check (assuming that doesn't itself trigger a trap), or at some kind of knowledge check, or at searching, or opening a lock, or whatever else: when do you let them try again, if ever? How do you decide that a failure means they just can't figure it out ever, and/or how do you let them try again?

On a related note, how would you justify someone trying a skill check again once without having to allow them to just keep trying until they succeed?

This is all assuming skill checks that have no particular consequence for failure other than not getting what they wanted; i.e., no monsters attack, no traps go off, no external time limit to figure things out, etc.

as a player, I've noticed that multiple tries advance the game clock with our GM. So, as one of us is trying something for the nth time, a wandering monster might catch up to us, etc.

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;961456as a player, I've noticed that multiple tries advance the game clock with our GM. So, as one of us is trying something for the nth time, a wandering monster might catch up to us, etc.

In the Cortex Plus Hacker's Guide they have a rule variant called Time Dice which kind of replaces Initiative and works very well for Play by Post games since players can take their turns non-sequentially. The game uses a dice pool, and you get an extra die for your Time Die depending on how quickly you move. These combine with something called Time Steps, which is a abstract way of recording time. Basically, the players declare their actions and Time Dice. If they forget to declare a Time Die, then it's assumed they take an average length for an action. Once actions and Time Dice are declared, the GM adds the Time Steps. You can improve your odds by acting slower thereby getting a higher die for your pool. The GM can attach events to Time Steps. So you might have a countdown of 100 time steps. If two of your players like to maximize the odds in their favor by taking their time, then those Time Steps are going to count down much more quickly. It uses a different mechanic than a d20ish/OSRish game but I'm sure I could figure out a system which may apply to combat, noncombat (especially) or both. The GM may or may not mention what the countdown is for which can create a sense of urgency.

Quote from: Baron Opal;961455Whether or not the task needs to be completed in 10 hours, 10 minutes, or 10 seconds.

Then replace 'day' with 10 hours, 10 minutes, or 10 seconds and answer the same question. Also what determines whether the task needs to be completed in 10 hours, 10 minutes, or 10 seconds?

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;961456as a player, I've noticed that multiple tries advance the game clock with our GM. So, as one of us is trying something for the nth time, a wandering monster might catch up to us, etc.

That was the original intent.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;961652Then replace 'day' with 10 hours, 10 minutes, or 10 seconds and answer the same question. Also what determines whether the task needs to be completed in 10 hours, 10 minutes, or 10 seconds?

The skill and the context of the situation are the factors in question. If "everyone" can do the task in 10 minutes but the "expert" can do it in 10 seconds, that's the significant test. If the skill check succeeds, then the expert has their ducks in a row and can perform the task quickly. If not, then not.

If there is no time pressure, in this example, then there is no point in performing the check.

I'm agreeing with the premise that if there is no consequence for failure or advantage for success then the check is mostly meaningless.

Quote from: Krimson;961463In the Cortex Plus Hacker's Guide they have a rule variant called Time Dice which kind of replaces Initiative and works very well for Play by Post games since players can take their turns non-sequentially. The game uses a dice pool, and you get an extra die for your Time Die depending on how quickly you move. These combine with something called Time Steps, which is a abstract way of recording time. Basically, the players declare their actions and Time Dice. If they forget to declare a Time Die, then it's assumed they take an average length for an action. Once actions and Time Dice are declared, the GM adds the Time Steps. You can improve your odds by acting slower thereby getting a higher die for your pool. The GM can attach events to Time Steps. So you might have a countdown of 100 time steps. If two of your players like to maximize the odds in their favor by taking their time, then those Time Steps are going to count down much more quickly. It uses a different mechanic than a d20ish/OSRish game but I'm sure I could figure out a system which may apply to combat, noncombat (especially) or both. The GM may or may not mention what the countdown is for which can create a sense of urgency.

Interesting. i haven't looked into Cortex. I was going to say this reminded me of Apocalypse World's "clocks", but it actually sounds quite different.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;960564It doesn't matter how many times you roll as long as something always happens on a failure.

I really disagree, unless by "something" you mean "what you're attempting doesn't happen".

Quote from: RPGPundit;962049I really disagree, unless by "something" you mean "what you're attempting doesn't happen".

If the roll doesn't establish anything in the fiction, then there's nothing preventing the player from rolling until they succeed, or the GM having the player roll until they fail. This is why #LetItRide and the like became a thing. At the very least failure should inform the player as to why they failed, and what they heed to do to try again.

Quote from: RPGPundit;962049I really disagree, unless by "something" you mean "what you're attempting doesn't happen".

That's a reaction, but if it stops the game from going forward (the players end up frustrated, for example) then there's something wrong.  And more dice checks and hoping that the laws of averages catch up is not fun for a lot of people, and personally, I love playing with dice.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;962054If the roll doesn't establish anything in the fiction, then there's nothing preventing the player from rolling until they succeed, or the GM having the player roll until they fail. This is why #LetItRide and the like became a thing. At the very least failure should inform the player as to why they failed, and what they heed to do to try again.

Yes there is. Its called a game master. If the rules assume a skill roll represents a best effort then re-rolling is only possible when circumstances change ( more skill is gained, better equipment employed, etc.) The reasons for failure may or may not be known to the player depending on the skill involved. The roll establishes success or failure. Success and failure are elements of game play. The fiction can fuck itself.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;962056That's a reaction, but if it stops the game from going forward (the players end up frustrated, for example) then there's something wrong.  And more dice checks and hoping that the laws of averages catch up is not fun for a lot of people, and personally, I love playing with dice.

If a failed skill roll stops a game from continuing then that game sucks. Do not pass GO and do NOT collect $200.00. Fail forward mechanics were developed for a single reason-to rationalize the existence of shitty linear scenarios that couldn't stand up to the rigors of actual play without them. Fix the scenarios to be a bit more flexible and open and the whole need for bullshit mechanics just melts away.

Another related issue is how many different skills need to be rolled before successfully completing a task.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;962074Yes there is. Its called a game master.

And again, what's to prevent them from having the player roll until they fail, or raise the target number to outlandish levels, or outright lie about the results?

The rules are there to establish expectations first and foremost, as if you don't know what to expect, you cannot take action with intent. So I guess if you're OK with the system only presenting the illusion of agency and can match your actions to the GM's unstated expectations you're set. But for everyone else, it's nice to know how to actually play the game.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;962074If the rules assume a skill roll represents a best effort then re-rolling is only possible when circumstances change

And who determines what these circumstances are? Because one set can be drastically easier to overcome than another. For example, using a different grappling hook is far easier than gaining another level. And if you say it's whatever the GM arbitrarily decides, you still haven't answered the original question.

Combat in traditional RPGs clearly define which changes allow for another attempt, which is why it's so often the focus. But by leaving everything else so vague they make it harder to establish expectations between groups for anything other than combat.

I'm of the school of failure = complication, whereby a complication needs to be resolved before being able to pursue the original objective again.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;962214The rules are there to establish expectations first and foremost, as if you don't know what to expect, you cannot take action with intent. So I guess if you're OK with the system only presenting the illusion of agency and can match your actions to the GM's unstated expectations you're set. But for everyone else, it's nice to know how to actually play the game.

Sweet Mother of Christ, did I just read a Mother May I/Play the GM argument...in 2017...outside of The Gaming Den?

Spoiler

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;962214Another related issue is how many different skills need to be rolled before successfully completing a task.



And again, what's to prevent them from having the player roll until they fail, or raise the target number to outlandish levels, or outright lie about the results?

The rules are there to establish expectations first and foremost, as if you don't know what to expect, you cannot take action with intent. So I guess if you're OK with the system only presenting the illusion of agency and can match your actions to the GM's unstated expectations you're set. But for everyone else, it's nice to know how to actually play the game.



And who determines what these circumstances are? Because one set can be drastically easier to overcome than another. For example, using a different grappling hook is far easier than gaining another level. And if you say it's whatever the GM arbitrarily decides, you still haven't answered the original question.

Combat in traditional RPGs clearly define which changes allow for another attempt, which is why it's so often the focus. But by leaving everything else so vague they make it harder to establish expectations between groups for anything other than combat.

I'm of the school of failure = complication, whereby a complication needs to be resolved before being able to pursue the original objective again.

Well, I generally game with adults so this sort of thing isn't really a problem.

Another related issue: How many times should a player roll until they achieve their objective? Because there's a reason combat and the like are so engaging: They require you to consider your methods and goals multiple times in the process. Seriously, resolving every situation in a single roll isn't very engaging, it is? So why is it still a thing? Why should some situations be resolved instantly while others resolved in multiple steps? And have situations which were resolved in a single step ever been the focus of an RPG?

It's also telling that my detractors can't clearly answer the initial question: When Should a PC get a Second Skill Roll? And I suspect it's because they have no clear idea as to when the player should roll in the first place.

Quote from: CRKrueger;962215Sweet Mother of Christ, did I just read a Mother May I/Play the GM argument...in 2017...outside of The Gaming Den?

Well first, those are two different arguments.

Second, regardless of rules, it all boils down to playing the GM, because they have all the power.

Finally, what the fuck is #TheGamingDen?

Quote from: Exploderwizard;962232Well, I generally game with adults so this sort of thing isn't really a problem.

Prove it. Because most 'adults' I know won't even touch a tabletop RPG

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;962493Another related issue: How many times should a player roll until they achieve their objective? Because there's a reason combat and the like are so engaging: They require you to consider your methods and goals multiple times in the process. Seriously, resolving every situation in a single roll isn't very engaging, it is? So why is it still a thing? Why should some situations be resolved instantly while others resolved in multiple steps? And have situations which were resolved in a single step ever been the focus of an RPG?

How would you do a blow-by-blow account of a task like picking a lock?

Quote from: RPGPundit;962049I really disagree, unless by "something" you mean "what you're attempting doesn't happen".

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;962054If the roll doesn't establish anything in the fiction, then there's nothing preventing the player from rolling until they succeed, or the GM having the player roll until they fail. This is why #LetItRide and the like became a thing. At the very least failure should inform the player as to why they failed, and what they heed to do to try again.

I don't think there is much real disagreement here. Anon is just cutting things a bit finer than the rest of us do and questioning base assumptions.

In the Nine Plane campaign, anybody can pick a common lock in 10-20 minutes if they have the tools. It's not that hard, they just "keep honest people honest", so to speak. A thief can pop that sucker open in about 10-60 seconds if they have the tools and a moment to concentrate. The skill check determines if you're "on" and can perform the task in the short time frame or if you're not and require the long time frame. (Even so, it would take a thief 5-10 minutes due to their familiarity. A fighter with tools would take the 10-20 minutes.)

So, it takes one check, and success or failure is determined. A retry is pointless, as failure defines that the goal will still be reached, just with a longer time frame.

For an example of a skill where a retry may be useful, we look to Search. The PCs through a general examination of the room discover that one section of wall is composed of a different stone. They are certain that a secret door is present, they just have to find the mechanism. It takes one character 10 minutes to thoroughly search a wall, and three people can search the same area at a time. One person tries and fails. 10 minutes pass. They try again and fail again. 10 more minutes pass. Now that the rest of the room has been searched, the cleric has healed wounds, &c., two more PCs come over to help. This time, there is a success among the three of them. 10 more minutes have passed, a total of 30 minutes, and now the party hears something shlumping down the corridor...

The main results of skill checks are spending time to achieve knowledge / ignorance, access / restraint, or safety / pain. As long as your tools are still applicable to the task and the fail state is not irreversible, there is still a point in retries.